Work experience is good when applying for jobs. Guessing it has a negligible effect on admissions.

FWIW, I seemed to outperform my numbers this year, and I can almost guarantee it's because of WE.

Or apps are down and they are shooting for lower numbers. Not saying WE isn't helpful for admissions, cause it can give a boost, but I'd say the numbers game is still there, even if they're scoring it slightly different this year from years past.

Work experience is good when applying for jobs. Guessing it has a negligible effect on admissions.

FWIW, I seemed to outperform my numbers this year, and I can almost guarantee it's because of WE.

Or apps are down and they are shooting for lower numbers. Not saying WE isn't helpful for admissions, cause it can give a boost, but I'd say the numbers game is still there, even if they're scoring it slightly different this year from years past.

Someone in this thread already ran the data for HLS:

Quest4Knowledge wrote:FWIW, the following is for HLS using data from the spreadsheets:

Accepted Students with 0 Years WE:Avg. LSAT: 174.8Avg. GPA: 3.93

Accepted Students with >0 Years WE:Avg. LSAT: 173.7Avg. GPA: 3.85

Data isn't complete, but arguably there's a quantifiable boost for not being KJD...

Obviously this is only one school and the data is incomplete, but there does seem to be something to the "WE is a plus" school of thought.

EDIT: SORRY the Quest4Knowledge quote came from the "K-JD/Weak softs" thread

Work experience is good when applying for jobs. Guessing it has a negligible effect on admissions.

FWIW, I seemed to outperform my numbers this year, and I can almost guarantee it's because of WE.

Or apps are down and they are shooting for lower numbers. Not saying WE isn't helpful for admissions, cause it can give a boost, but I'd say the numbers game is still there, even if they're scoring it slightly different this year from years past.

Someone in this thread already ran the data for HLS:

Quest4Knowledge wrote:FWIW, the following is for HLS using data from the spreadsheets:

Accepted Students with 0 Years WE:Avg. LSAT: 174.8Avg. GPA: 3.93

Accepted Students with >0 Years WE:Avg. LSAT: 173.7Avg. GPA: 3.85

Data isn't complete, but arguably there's a quantifiable boost for not being KJD...

Obviously this is only one school and the data is incomplete, but there does seem to be something to the "WE is a plus" school of thought.

EDIT: SORRY the Quest4Knowledge quote came from the "K-JD/Weak softs" thread

First off, pointing to HLS isn't a great idea because they have some of the most flexibility to let softs like WE give a boost. You need to look more at levels below that where numbers are fought for pretty heavily like MVP and below.

Like I said, WE can give a boost, but too many people want to point to their softs for "outperforming" their numbers when the reality is they may be hitting right where their numbers should hit in this cycle. It makes you feel special and that you're different from the crowd. That may be the case, but for most, it's not.

I would've gotten those right, so my score would've jumped 11+ pts if I knew how to fill in a scantron. Also, no comments please, because I will kick myself for that idiocy until I'm in law school.

.....

Last year, I'd probably have barely gotten into FSU, and this year I'm very realistically hoping to end up at USC. (Yes, other posters, I know it's not T14, but I have my own reasons for being ok with being on the fringe of T14.)

'SC is a fine choice for those that want to be in SoCal. But why not retake and attend 'SC at a big discount? Apply to UCLA as well and negotiate between the two. (Dean Schwartz is extremely flexible in this economy.)

TwirlerGirl wrote:Okay, here is my reasoning for not re-taking. First of all, obviously I'm not lazy or I wouldn't have a 4.0. I'm good at exams, not standardized tests. Also, law school is all about being top of your class. I feel that these schools give me a chance at being a big fish in a smaller pond. I feel like I would drown if I got into Harvard and Yale and it wouldn't be worth it. Even if I got a full ride to a top 14, what if I can't even keep my scholarship past the first year? Maybe some of those schools only have an 8% chance at big law, I think I have a better chance at top 8% at those schools.

This is lazy thinking. I am the least snotty t-14 type of student, and frankly can't stand all of the bowtie wearing self-righteousness. These are the issues:

1.) You don't have a better chance of being top 8% at George Mason than you do at a t-14. That's asinine thinking. You probably have a better shot of being above median, but it's literally a few percentage points. Top 8% at GM is going to be above median at any law school in the country so at most you break even.

2.) It's very rare one can't break a 160, but will be a law school guru. Although many question the LSAT's predictive value, if you can't recognize argumentative gaps on a pretty easy test at an 80% success rate -> your exams aren't going to be great. Everyone is going to know the BLL. Most will be able to apply it. The difference between the bottom 25% and top 25% at any non-shit school is your logic. A 172 won't apply logic better than a 171 in all likelihood, but a 165 v. a 155 has much greater likelihood to.

3.) Even if you were top 8%, you're not necessarily in great shape. You need to be a perfect candidate in addition to getting top 8%. First off, someone's daddy is going to be a rainmaking partner at a major firm. Happens all the time. They're going to be a not so bright, kind of off kid who is going to get a big law job at another firm (because really, how hard is the work and this builds the firm's network) so some people at the top still get screwed. It's not a GPA:Offer game, but the ones who outperform their grades are generally privileged or did some awesome shit before law school. So will you get screwed at top 8%? You're a girl. Are you overweight? Do you have any disability - a limp, speech impediment, boring voice? Do you have business experience? If any of these is a yes you're probably more likely than not to be screwed even with top 8% grades at these places. These forums only discuss grades, but with the exception of racial/cultural diversity (and arguably even here in how this diversity is judged), there is more discrimination in this field than almost any other. At my school, none of the bubbly really good looking people are still dressing up when they come to class. Bare in mind, everyone, especially law students overrate themselves in this area. At a t-14 you can have imperfections, but make the cut as long as nothing is too off-putting.

4.) If you don't want to be bothered to retake the test, how are you going to be bothered to outwork everyone (think 72 hour weeks+) to compensate for not being a good standardized test taker (law school tests are more like standardized tests than college tests, because of the forced curve)?

5.) You immediately jump to a strawman argument that says, "No one makes it at these schools," which no one said. If you played a college sport, think about it in these terms. There's a draft. If you're a first round pick you might fail, but will get every chance to succeed. Pretend you're a late round pick or go undrafted. You also have a job offer at Goldman Sachs (let's call it the retake equivalent). Your response is, "I can make it playing the sport professionally. Tom Trump Supporter Brady made it. Nevermind 99% of 6th and 7th round picks are out of the league in 3 years, and done. Tom Trump Supporter Brady made it. Therefore, I will make it." It's a crazy argument. It's like saying, "Fuck Wachtell. I'm going to work for a shady solo attorney who just got reinstated into the bar after being convicted of heroine possession. I can really stand out here, and then lateral to partner elsewhere. I'm sure 1 guy did it."

No one's saying you can't be a good lawyer. They're saying you're very likely never getting an opportunity. You can say it's unfair, but it's really not. How else would you do it? Whoever comes from the most $? Whoever can avoid excessive drinking, drug usage and fornication the best when they're 18 should have the best legal career at 40? This is the closest to = possibility that is possible, and the reason why special snowflake syndrome annoys people is you're basically saying, "Screw equal opportunity or merit based evaluations. Mommy and Daddy said I'm special. Therefore, statistics, objectivity and performance assessment don't apply to me."

Work experience is good when applying for jobs. Guessing it has a negligible effect on admissions.

FWIW, I seemed to outperform my numbers this year, and I can almost guarantee it's because of WE.

Or apps are down and they are shooting for lower numbers. Not saying WE isn't helpful for admissions, cause it can give a boost, but I'd say the numbers game is still there, even if they're scoring it slightly different this year from years past.

Yeah, I thought maybe I had outperformed my numbers last cycle but then by the end of the cycle I realized it was almost assuredly because standards had been lowered across the board.

Work experience is good when applying for jobs. Guessing it has a negligible effect on admissions.

FWIW, I seemed to outperform my numbers this year, and I can almost guarantee it's because of WE.

Or apps are down and they are shooting for lower numbers. Not saying WE isn't helpful for admissions, cause it can give a boost, but I'd say the numbers game is still there, even if they're scoring it slightly different this year from years past.

Yeah, I thought maybe I had outperformed my numbers last cycle but then by the end of the cycle I realized it was almost assuredly because standards had been lowered across the board.

Maybe WE is a huge game changer though, I'm not sure.

As far as I can tell from trolling LSN, the only time WE is a huge game changer is if you've done something really, truly impressive. Anyways, most people do come to law school with WE, so its entirely possibly that not having any work experience is the game changer in a negative way.

I would've gotten those right, so my score would've jumped 11+ pts if I knew how to fill in a scantron. Also, no comments please, because I will kick myself for that idiocy until I'm in law school.

.....

Last year, I'd probably have barely gotten into FSU, and this year I'm very realistically hoping to end up at USC. (Yes, other posters, I know it's not T14, but I have my own reasons for being ok with being on the fringe of T14.)

'SC is a fine choice for those that want to be in SoCal. But why not retake and attend 'SC at a big discount? Apply to UCLA as well and negotiate between the two. (Dean Schwartz is extremely flexible in this economy.)

I took it three times. Should not have sat for it in Dec '12 when Oct '12 was a nightmare, but oh well. I've applied to UCLA though! I just think I see a WL in my future there. (Stats in profile).

TwirlerGirl wrote:Okay, here is my reasoning for not re-taking. First of all, obviously I'm not lazy or I wouldn't have a 4.0. I'm good at exams, not standardized tests. Also, law school is all about being top of your class. I feel that these schools give me a chance at being a big fish in a smaller pond. I feel like I would drown if I got into Harvard and Yale and it wouldn't be worth it. Even if I got a full ride to a top 14, what if I can't even keep my scholarship past the first year? Maybe some of those schools only have an 8% chance at big law, I think I have a better chance at top 8% at those schools.

This is lazy thinking. I am the least snotty t-14 type of student, and frankly can't stand all of the bowtie wearing self-righteousness. These are the issues:

1.) You don't have a better chance of being top 8% at George Mason than you do at a t-14. That's asinine thinking. You probably have a better shot of being above median, but it's literally a few percentage points. Top 8% at GM is going to be above median at any law school in the country so at most you break even.

2.) It's very rare one can't break a 160, but will be a law school guru. Although many question the LSAT's predictive value, if you can't recognize argumentative gaps on a pretty easy test at an 80% success rate -> your exams aren't going to be great. Everyone is going to know the BLL. Most will be able to apply it. The difference between the bottom 25% and top 25% at any non-shit school is your logic. A 172 won't apply logic better than a 171 in all likelihood, but a 165 v. a 155 has much greater likelihood to.

3.) Even if you were top 8%, you're not necessarily in great shape. You need to be a perfect candidate in addition to getting top 8%. First off, someone's daddy is going to be a rainmaking partner at a major firm. Happens all the time. They're going to be a not so bright, kind of off kid who is going to get a big law job at another firm (because really, how hard is the work and this builds the firm's network) so some people at the top still get screwed. It's not a GPA:Offer game, but the ones who outperform their grades are generally privileged or did some awesome shit before law school. So will you get screwed at top 8%? You're a girl. Are you overweight? Do you have any disability - a limp, speech impediment, boring voice? Do you have business experience? If any of these is a yes you're probably more likely than not to be screwed even with top 8% grades at these places. These forums only discuss grades, but with the exception of racial/cultural diversity (and arguably even here in how this diversity is judged), there is more discrimination in this field than almost any other. At my school, none of the bubbly really good looking people are still dressing up when they come to class. Bare in mind, everyone, especially law students overrate themselves in this area. At a t-14 you can have imperfections, but make the cut as long as nothing is too off-putting.

4.) If you don't want to be bothered to retake the test, how are you going to be bothered to outwork everyone (think 72 hour weeks+) to compensate for not being a good standardized test taker (law school tests are more like standardized tests than college tests, because of the forced curve)?

5.) You immediately jump to a strawman argument that says, "No one makes it at these schools," which no one said. If you played a college sport, think about it in these terms. There's a draft. If you're a first round pick you might fail, but will get every chance to succeed. Pretend you're a late round pick or go undrafted. You also have a job offer at Goldman Sachs (let's call it the retake equivalent). Your response is, "I can make it playing the sport professionally. Tom Trump Supporter Brady made it. Nevermind 99% of 6th and 7th round picks are out of the league in 3 years, and done. Tom Trump Supporter Brady made it. Therefore, I will make it." It's a crazy argument. It's like saying, "Fuck Wachtell. I'm going to work for a shady solo attorney who just got reinstated into the bar after being convicted of heroine possession. I can really stand out here, and then lateral to partner elsewhere. I'm sure 1 guy did it."

No one's saying you can't be a good lawyer. They're saying you're very likely never getting an opportunity. You can say it's unfair, but it's really not. How else would you do it? Whoever comes from the most $? Whoever can avoid excessive drinking, drug usage and fornication the best when they're 18 should have the best legal career at 40? This is the closest to = possibility that is possible, and the reason why special snowflake syndrome annoys people is you're basically saying, "Screw equal opportunity or merit based evaluations. Mommy and Daddy said I'm special. Therefore, statistics, objectivity and performance assessment don't apply to me."

anyriotgirl wrote:Ha no I'm too confident for a girl-- that's my point. I have to tone it down so as not to hurt the poor menz feelings and alienate other girls. Believe me, I am a super angry feminist, but you have to be able to turn it off sometimes or you shoot yourself in the foot.

OP, you would be doing yourself a disservice by matriculating at a law school this fall. Others have argued very persuasively that if you wish to pursue a career as an attorney, you should take the LSAT again. I would kill for your GPA--don't waste it.

The more important consideration here is that, from the evidence you have offered in this thread, you don't have a firm idea of what you to do with your career. Entering law school without a clear plan is a recipe for disaster. You described delaying law school as "wasting a year," but in your situation, spending a year (or in my case, seven years) in the professional world would be anything but wasteful. You need to gain more experience interviewing, networking, drafting professional correspondence, paying off loans, etc. And as a bonus, you'll make some money, build out your resume, and you'll probably even get to know some lawyers to learn if their career paths would suit you.

My wife is an attorney in the DC area and conducts on-campus interviews at several of the law schools in the area. She would tell you that even at top schools like UVA and Georgetown, many of the candidates simply do not have the professional skills and maturity they need in order to be competitive. And very few have a resume that matches up with the field in which she is hiring. So out of a stack of 200 applications from eager law students, her hiring process really boils down to 3 or 4 candidates with strong professional skills and relevant work experience. And that narrowing happens before she even considers grades.

Get some experience, figure out what field of law you want to work in, make some money. Come back in 2-3 years with a clear plan an LSAT 10 points higher (you absolutely will score that high). Get into exactly the school you want, and earn exactly the job you want.

TwirlerGirl wrote:Okay, here is my reasoning for not re-taking. First of all, obviously I'm not lazy or I wouldn't have a 4.0. I'm good at exams, not standardized tests. Also, law school is all about being top of your class. I feel that these schools give me a chance at being a big fish in a smaller pond. I feel like I would drown if I got into Harvard and Yale and it wouldn't be worth it. Even if I got a full ride to a top 14, what if I can't even keep my scholarship past the first year? Maybe some of those schools only have an 8% chance at big law, I think I have a better chance at top 8% at those schools.

This is lazy thinking. I am the least snotty t-14 type of student, and frankly can't stand all of the bowtie wearing self-righteousness. These are the issues:

1.) You don't have a better chance of being top 8% at George Mason than you do at a t-14. That's asinine thinking. You probably have a better shot of being above median, but it's literally a few percentage points. Top 8% at GM is going to be above median at any law school in the country so at most you break even.

2.) It's very rare one can't break a 160, but will be a law school guru. Although many question the LSAT's predictive value, if you can't recognize argumentative gaps on a pretty easy test at an 80% success rate -> your exams aren't going to be great. Everyone is going to know the BLL. Most will be able to apply it. The difference between the bottom 25% and top 25% at any non-shit school is your logic. A 172 won't apply logic better than a 171 in all likelihood, but a 165 v. a 155 has much greater likelihood to.

3.) Even if you were top 8%, you're not necessarily in great shape. You need to be a perfect candidate in addition to getting top 8%. First off, someone's daddy is going to be a rainmaking partner at a major firm. Happens all the time. They're going to be a not so bright, kind of off kid who is going to get a big law job at another firm (because really, how hard is the work and this builds the firm's network) so some people at the top still get screwed. It's not a GPA:Offer game, but the ones who outperform their grades are generally privileged or did some awesome shit before law school. So will you get screwed at top 8%? You're a girl. Are you overweight? Do you have any disability - a limp, speech impediment, boring voice? Do you have business experience? If any of these is a yes you're probably more likely than not to be screwed even with top 8% grades at these places. These forums only discuss grades, but with the exception of racial/cultural diversity (and arguably even here in how this diversity is judged), there is more discrimination in this field than almost any other. At my school, none of the bubbly really good looking people are still dressing up when they come to class. Bare in mind, everyone, especially law students overrate themselves in this area. At a t-14 you can have imperfections, but make the cut as long as nothing is too off-putting.

4.) If you don't want to be bothered to retake the test, how are you going to be bothered to outwork everyone (think 72 hour weeks+) to compensate for not being a good standardized test taker (law school tests are more like standardized tests than college tests, because of the forced curve)?

5.) You immediately jump to a strawman argument that says, "No one makes it at these schools," which no one said. If you played a college sport, think about it in these terms. There's a draft. If you're a first round pick you might fail, but will get every chance to succeed. Pretend you're a late round pick or go undrafted. You also have a job offer at Goldman Sachs (let's call it the retake equivalent). Your response is, "I can make it playing the sport professionally. Tom Trump Supporter Brady made it. Nevermind 99% of 6th and 7th round picks are out of the league in 3 years, and done. Tom Trump Supporter Brady made it. Therefore, I will make it." It's a crazy argument. It's like saying, "Fuck Wachtell. I'm going to work for a shady solo attorney who just got reinstated into the bar after being convicted of heroine possession. I can really stand out here, and then lateral to partner elsewhere. I'm sure 1 guy did it."

No one's saying you can't be a good lawyer. They're saying you're very likely never getting an opportunity. You can say it's unfair, but it's really not. How else would you do it? Whoever comes from the most $? Whoever can avoid excessive drinking, drug usage and fornication the best when they're 18 should have the best legal career at 40? This is the closest to = possibility that is possible, and the reason why special snowflake syndrome annoys people is you're basically saying, "Screw equal opportunity or merit based evaluations. Mommy and Daddy said I'm special. Therefore, statistics, objectivity and performance assessment don't apply to me."

+2. This is an incredibly logical (key word is he/she is using logic) explanation of the fallacies that illogical people create/perpetuate to justify not exerting additional time/effort to retake. I wish I had this metaphor presented to me before selecting a law school. I rationalized not retaking because I hated the test, was unhappy with my result, and got in relatively early to some "safety" schools (in a similar range to the schools OP is considering, but w/o any scholly $$). I feel like I shortchanged myself because I had a great GPA from a good school, but I didn't put in the extra time to study, take off a cycle, and see either (1) if I could get into better schools, or (2) get more scholly $$. If I was thinking logically, I would have decided work 1 year (to really kill the LSAT) to minimize my debt by getting an awesome scholly rather than take 40 years working to pay off all the debt I will/have incur(red).

You'll never know if you don't retake, but you will know that you have a pile of debt and uncertain job prospects. It's all about improving your possible outcomes -- it's like an athletes that defers entering the draft one year b/c of poor performance/injury to take a year to improve/recover and maximize his return on investment. Unlike the quoted poster, I wasn't logical and didn't strive to get into a T14 or try to max out scholarship offers at schools in the region where I wanted to work. I settled, and that has/will cost me a lot of money of the course of my career.

kcdc1 wrote:OP, you would be doing yourself a disservice by matriculating at a law school this fall. Others have argued very persuasively that if you wish to pursue a career as an attorney, you should take the LSAT again. I would kill for your GPA--don't waste it.

The more important consideration here is that, from the evidence you have offered in this thread, you don't have a firm idea of what you to do with your career. Entering law school without a clear plan is a recipe for disaster. You described delaying law school as "wasting a year," but in your situation, spending a year (or in my case, seven years) in the professional world would be anything but wasteful. You need to gain more experience interviewing, networking, drafting professional correspondence, paying off loans, etc. And as a bonus, you'll make some money, build out your resume, and you'll probably even get to know some lawyers to learn if their career paths would suit you.

My wife is an attorney in the DC area and conducts on-campus interviews at several of the law schools in the area. She would tell you that even at top schools like UVA and Georgetown, many of the candidates simply do not have the professional skills and maturity they need in order to be competitive. And very few have a resume that matches up with the field in which she is hiring. So out of a stack of 200 applications from eager law students, her hiring process really boils down to 3 or 4 candidates with strong professional skills and relevant work experience. And that narrowing happens before she even considers grades.

Get some experience, figure out what field of law you want to work in, make some money. Come back in 2-3 years with a clear plan an LSAT 10 points higher (you absolutely will score that high). Get into exactly the school you want, and earn exactly the job you want.